From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com>
Cc: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:50:05 -0400
Message-ID: <20681.1145127005@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200604151809.k3FI96M06462@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200604151809.k3FI96M06462@candle.pha.pa.us>
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> The point is that the test does not have a
> one-second window of showing the wrong answer, meaning I could wait for
> 60 seconds, and still see the wrong WAL file at the top.
Oh, I see your point: you can lose at most one second's worth of data,
but that second could be arbitrarily long ago if it was the latest
activity in the database. Yeah, that's a bit unpleasant. So we really
do need both parts of the ordering rule, and there seems no way to do
that with just 'ls'.
I wonder if you could do anything with find(1)'s -newer switch?
It seems to be a '>' condition not a '>=' condition, so it'd be
pretty awkward ... certainly not a one-liner.
I think everyone agrees that adding a SQL function would be a reasonable
thing to do, anyway.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, jeff@frostconsultingllc.com, dev@archonet.com
Subject: Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file
In-Reply-To: <20681.1145127005@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox